General comments

MLA disagrees with the discussion paper, and offers the following specific comments on the paper's three sections.

1.1

- Although it is indeed sometimes not clear cut whether to consider something an expression of an existing work or a new, related work, the types of musical arrangements described in this paper seem to fall quite clearly in the realm of expressions. If the basic musical content of the arrangement is the same as the existing work, then it's the same work.

- The paper’s distinction between composers as arrangers and performers as arrangers is problematic. It doesn't matter who does the arranging, and the proposed arbitrary difference in treatment depending on who the arranger is would lead to inconsistency in cataloging. See the comments on section 1.3 for further elaboration on this point.

- The paper conflates arrangements and adaptations by citing 6.28.1.5 in an attempt to argue that "RDA admits that some arrangements can be regarded as new works." In fact, 6.28.1.5 outlines the criteria for deciding that something has gone beyond mere arrangement and is instead an adaptation, and therefore, a new work.

- When an arrangement has a different thematic index number and/or a different title from the original work, we suggest that this information could be coded in an expression record for the arrangement. The expression record could also have a variant access point under the name of the arranger. We agree that it would be useful to capture this information in a systematic, accessible way, even if we don’t agree with going as far as naming the arrangement under the name of the arranger in an authorized access point.

- We fear a loss of the collocation function of authorized access points in the landscape that the paper promotes. If we consider arrangements to be new works, the arrangements will not collocate with the original version.

1.2

- The paper contradicts itself by proposing to "distinguish versions of the same work" in its advancement of the idea of considering arrangements to be new works. We note that even the authors of the document refer to the arrangement as a version of the same work.

- The proposed solution of distinguishing these different versions of a work by including medium of performance as qualifier is the same as the AACR2 and RDA solution for distinguishing actual different works by the same composer that just happen to have the same title and are for differing media. We object to the proposal to treat these two very different scenarios the same way.

1.3

- The proposed method puts the burden of research on the cataloger to determine if the arranger is primarily a performer or primarily a composer. Many arrangers are both performers and composers.

- It also puts the burden of research on the cataloger to determine if the arrangement was made for pedagogical purposes, a distinction which shouldn’t determine how the arrangement is treated.

- Again, the paper’s distinction between composers as arrangers and performers as arrangers is problematic. It doesn't matter who does the arranging, and the proposed arbitrary difference in treatment depending on who the arranger is would lead to inconsistency in cataloging. David Vincent’s arrangement for 4 saxophones of a work by Debussy is not different enough in principle from Ravel's orchestration of a work by Mussorgsky to warrant such different treatment.

In general, we observe that the proposed change in treatment of arrangements is not supported in our current environment and is not backwards compatible with AACR2. The paper seems to be trying to solve the problem of representing the complexity of musical expressions in our current environment by simply pushing the complexity up to the work level. Ideally, we want to represent clusters or webs of expressions in relation to the work that they all express. We don't do that terribly well now, but EURIG is trying to solve that problem by creating instead a web of works (and expressions), which doesn't simplify, but rather makes the landscape even more complex.

Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 9/28/12

I am strongly opposed to the suggestions in this discussion paper.

I concur with the MLA response (again, I contributed to it). One additional comment: I don't see why thematic index numbers associated with an expression could not already be justified by either 6.12 or 6.13. Perhaps some more specific language about this particular problem could be added there, regardless of the outcome of this discussion paper.

- Glennan (PCC) 9/28/12

Constituency responses

1 Musical arrangements: new expressions of the same work, or new works.

1.1 Arrangements by composers

CCC supports retaining current practice because it supports collocation under the name of the creator of the work. CCC does not support introducing an exception to this principle. Notes that the relationships "musical arrangement/musical arrangement of" already exist for use between expressions.

1.2 Works arranged by their own creator

Objects to using the same method to construct unique access points for different musical works bearing the same title and to distinguish versions of the same work. Could cause confusion among users; obscures distinctions; hinders collocation; introduces case law exception for very rare situations.

1.3 Arrangements by non-composers: Does not support.

2 Arrangements and Performances: inexplicit relationships

Appropriate relationship types already exist in Appendix J. The problem is not how RDA treats relationships but how access points are constructed applying 6.28.3.1-6.28.3.5. If the additions provided at 6.27.3 were also applicable to musical expressions, the construction of unique access points for musical expressions would be possible.

Regarding complete works by a composer, we do not share EURIG’s concern; we feel that relating the works to the common manifestation using a Work Manifested relationship is sufficient.

In relation to treating musical arrangements by composers as new works rather than new expressions of the same work: some arrangements may be considered more substantial or significant than others, but not all arrangements occupy this level of significance.

Considers that the criteria in 6.28.1.5 are sufficient and adequate to account for the more significant arrangements. Could add examples to strengthen the instruction.

Difficulty in consistently applying an instruction to treat arrangements by composers separately from arrangements by non-composers -- this is not always clear-cut.

The gist is of this is that in treating arrangements by composers as new works the relationships are better handled and described; but this would still leave arrangements by non-­composers(e.g., performers and pedagogues)unaffected and problematic.

Topics mentioned in this paper are interesting and need further discussion. We can imagine putting the suggested revisions in an alternative rule. In general we think that an adaptation of a work should be connected with the work in any case.

Many of the attributes addressed are important, and recording them can be meaningful in fulfilling user tasks. But we don’t feel the attributes discussed should necessarily be brought out in access points as recommended. We feel the user’s convenience can be better served by other means of presenting these elements.

1.1 Arrangements by composers: Proposal

We see no difference here between musical works revised by their original creator and authors’ revisions of their literary works. In both cases, a revision could be extensive enough to be considered a new work. We don’t agree that any revision by an author or composer of his or her pre-existing work must, by definition, be regarded as a new work.

1.2 Specific case: works arranged by their own creator

With consultation of reference sources, it is generally not particularly difficult to ascertain which version of a work is the original. Such a consideration does not provide solid support for regarding every version
of such a work as a new work.

Proposal:
In creating authorized access points for expressions, we note again that among other distinguishing features, medium of performance, while absent as an option now, could reasonably be recommended -- this could be added to the instructions. Regarding the Liszt example, we find that treating the two versions shown as entirely separate works fails to provide for the relationship between them, and is therefore misleading to users. Analogy to 6.28.1.10 is not applicable; that instruction covers works –- not expressions -- that have no relationship to each other. Distinguishing between expressions of the same work should not use the same additions as used to distinguish separate works.

Finally, this discussion relies on a context of Western art music, which we see as a bias in the music instructions throughout RDA. the RDA Music Joint Working Group will (likely?) examine that issue.

1.3 Arrangements by non-composers

This distinction will likely require more research than ought reasonably be expected of catalogers and at worst wades into the treacherous waters of judging what earns a musician the title “composer”. If made, the distinction would be opaque to end users. The audience to which a work or an
expression is directed can already be recorded elsewhere.

2. Arrangements and performances: inexplicit relationships

We disagree that RDA “does not make it possible to establish a clear, direct relationship between an arrangement and its various recorded performances.” It is possible to bring these differences and attributes [various recordings, versions, etc.] out in various other access points, such as for a related work or a contributor to an expression.

we would welcome more relationship designators that could render a relationship explicit. An expansion of the types of relationships represented in Appendix J would offer more meaningful ways to bring specific musical relationships RDA now overlooks to the service of user tasks.

Lacks expertise in this area. Notes that, in general, the scope of RDA 6.28.1.5 Adaptations of Musical Works should be sufficient to accommodate the requirements of EURIG without mandating the specific instance of a composer’s adaptation of their own work.